Abstract:Recent work moves intermediate reasoning from natural-language traces into latent or cache-level representations to reduce token overhead and avoid a discrete communication bottleneck. However, this shift also removes a key advantage of textual reasoning: intermediate states are no longer inspectable, making it difficult to determine whether a latent state still preserves the constraints of the original query. As a result, latent reasoning typically operates in an open loop, where a latent state is produced and consumed without an input-anchored fidelity check. We propose ReLAT (Reconstruction-Guided Latent Reasoning At Test Time), a self-supervised test-time training method that closes this loop using the query itself as the reference. Our key observation is that if a latent state faithfully represents a query, the query should be recoverable from it; if the query cannot be recovered, the latent state has lost task-relevant information. ReLAT operationalizes this principle by constructing a differentiable Question -> Latent Thought -> Question cycle and optimizing query reconstruction loss through the latent thought before answer generation. This anchors opaque latent computation to the problem specification it is supposed to represent. Across mathematical reasoning, knowledge QA, and code generation benchmarks on the Qwen family, ReLAT consistently improves over single-model inference, text-based collaboration, open-loop latent collaboration, and alternative test-time training objectives. On Qwen3-8B, ReLAT raises AIME 2024 accuracy from 56.7% to 73.3%, a 16.6-point gain over the strongest open-loop latent baseline.
Abstract:Multi-agent systems built on large language models have shown strong performance on complex reasoning tasks, yet most work focuses on agent roles and orchestration while treating inter-agent communication as a fixed interface. Latent communication through internal representations such as key-value caches offers a promising alternative to text-based protocols, but existing approaches do not jointly optimize communication with multi-agent reasoning. Therefore we propose DiffMAS, a training framework that treats latent communication as a learnable component of multi-agent systems. DiffMAS performs parameter-efficient supervised training over multi-agent latent trajectories, enabling agents to jointly learn how information should be encoded and interpreted across interactions. Experiments on mathematical reasoning, scientific QA, code generation, and commonsense benchmarks show that DiffMAS consistently improves reasoning accuracy and decoding stability over single-agent inference, text-based multi-agent systems, and prior latent communication methods, achieving 26.7% on AIME24, 20.2% on GPQA-Diamond, and consistent gains across reasoning benchmarks.




Abstract:Spurious correlations in training data significantly hinder the generalization capability of machine learning models when faced with distribution shifts in real-world scenarios. To tackle the problem, numerous debias approaches have been proposed and benchmarked on datasets intentionally designed with severe biases. However, it remains to be asked: \textit{1. Do existing benchmarks really capture biases in the real world? 2. Can existing debias methods handle biases in the real world?} To answer the questions, we revisit biased distributions in existing benchmarks and real-world datasets, and propose a fine-grained framework for analyzing dataset bias by disentangling it into the magnitude and prevalence of bias. We observe and theoretically demonstrate that existing benchmarks poorly represent real-world biases. We further introduce two novel biased distributions to bridge this gap, forming a nuanced evaluation framework for real-world debiasing. Building upon these results, we evaluate existing debias methods with our evaluation framework. Results show that existing methods are incapable of handling real-world biases. Through in-depth analysis, we propose a simple yet effective approach that can be easily applied to existing debias methods, named Debias in Destruction (DiD). Empirical results demonstrate the superiority of DiD, improving the performance of existing methods on all types of biases within the proposed evaluation framework.